Hello, Hello, Hey!

Five reasons why we should, as Louis van Gaal so eloquently puts it, ‘pay attention to the manager’.

It’s been just over a year since the pain also known as David Moyes left United, and yet aspiring to be City couldn’t be further from anyone’s minds (especially because aspiring to be a team you’ve beaten 4-2 seems even more ridiculous). A large part of this is due to the man from Oranje, whose philosophising and drunken antics have largely erased the ink blots of his predecessor.

A lot of post-season will unnecessarily, but nevertheless, be spent in reflection on whether 2014/15 was a success for Manchester United, and whether van Gaal has done a good job. In honour of this mass hysteria, here are five reasons why I think our man with the (self professed) Golden Balls has not only succeeded, but has to stay at the very least until the end of his contract.

He’s entertaining. A part of Sir Alex that many people seem to forget is how much of a character he was. The incomprehensible Scottish brogue, ‘squeaky bum time’ catchphrases and love affair with watches all made him someone impossible to ignore, the way most people could tune out Moyes. Van Gaal is someone in the same mould. There’s never a dull moment: someone who dares to slap Ryan Giggs rarely has any. His quotes include the tribute-like ‘twitchy ass’, ‘Queens Park Raisins’ and the childish delight of ‘we have only one player injured…can you believe that?’ My personal favourite is when he interrupted Gary Neville on live TV to congratulate ‘his team’ after the Liverpool win, demonstrating both his…quirkiness, and commitment to the club. And of course, his plaudit winning end of season awards speech should have had an entirely new Oscar category for it.

He’s got balls. How many managers you know would bench the most expensive players if he felt they weren’t performing? And how many managers would have a penalty kick system so rigid that even the most preeminent choices would be dropped if they didn’t deliver? Whatever else can be said about him, Louis van Gaal is a man unafraid of sticking to his own mind and choices. His philosophy is the stuff of legend. Stubbornness has its drawbacks, and for a while I was afraid van Gaal would be too stubborn and refuse to adapt, but he managed to prove me wrong. It took a while for him to realise just how useless 3-5-2 was, but once he got that down, he was smart enough to make the transition of ‘philosophy’ go almost unnoticed. We ended up with a few good runs and van Gaal ended up with his stubbornness still intact. It’s a refreshing change from the dithering Moyes who seemed to go with whoever was the loudest counsel at the time.

(One thing I’ll add, however, is that the drawback to this that he still hasn’t fixed is his incomprehensible need to play players in the wrong positions. Hopefully that will be fixed by next season – we don’t need to see another woeful Rooney display from midfield.)

He delivers. No one’s going to forget 3-0 / 2-1 Liverpool, 4-2 City, or 3-0 a Harry Kane-led Spurs in a hurry. These were exceptional results topped with a cherry – the revitalising of players previously considered surplus, namely Ashley Young and Marouane Fellaini. Van Gaal has to take credit for these remarkable turnarounds (even though the same, sadly, cannot be said about Jonny Evans). He promised he would get us into fourth place, and that he has done entirely. There were even a couple of scrappy, last-minute win games reminiscent of the Ferguson era. Of course there’ve been let-downs (games against Leicester and Everton that will go unmentioned). But there are shocks and disappointments every season, and I think the sentiment is admirably summed up in this MUFC facebook post.

He doesn’t settle. The difference between us and Arsenal is this: fourth place is not a trophy. The fans know that, the players know that, and he knows that. There were some accusations of ‘overcelebrating’ (remind you of any point of the season?) but people associated with United know far better – absolutely no one is satisfied. The aim of fourth place was Champions League qualification, and a setting-back onto the path of proper glory. Van Gaal’s real aim is to win the league, as well as other things, during his time here. And you can be sure we’ll be listening to an English version of the victory speech very soon.

We have to. Manchester United are a club known for its two longest-serving managers. Granted, the in-between years are not a similar story, but between them Sir Matt Busby and Sir Alex Ferguson handled an astonishing 50 of United’s 112 years (137 if you count Newton Heath). Even the shorter-term managers are long staying compared to the lifespan of many a Premier League chief. To sack van Gaal for no brazenly clear reason, and coming on the tail of an already mishandled discharge, would be ridiculous. Even if you don’t like van Gaal, he’s been more than adequate. Who knows what next season might bring? Take the words of Sir Alex to heart: your job is to stand by your new manager. The manager will do his job – we will do ours.

Tabula Rasa

In philosophy (actual philosophy) there is a term: tabula rasa. It means ‘clean slate’, and it refers to the theory that the human mind is blank and must be impressed upon to develop. Certainly Louis van Gaal seems to think this of Manchester United – that the club is a blank wax tablet for him to introduce his (football) philosophy and mold the club to his liking. There’s an important distinction to be made here, between club philosophies and manager philosophies. People like van Gaal, Jose Mourinho, Pep Guardiola all have their own ways of playing that are identifiable. But what happens when you cross someone like this with a club like Manchester United – a club with a history so deep and a style so obvious?

A friend asked me recently why I started supporting Manchester United. Whether it was the way they played that got me. While it wasn’t that, I couldn’t help but wonder whether clubs should have specific ways of playing – something that they stick to throughout changes to managers, changes to players. United, of course, has what they call the ‘United way’ – fast, attacking football, blistering counter attacks, since the days of Sir Matt Busby and perhaps even further back. Barcelona in recent years have associated themselves with tiki-taka. Ajax of course had Total Football. All of this lends itself to the identity of the team. It means that the club has a way of setting itself apart from others, of saying ‘this is the way I do things’, and of course it’s great. It gives a club even more meaning.

The identity of a club provides a framework which can then be built upon by managers. Fundamentally United will always mean fast, attacking football, but how this is interpreted and how this is changed depends on the situation, the players and the manager. This is where managerial philosophy, harped upon so much by van Gaal, comes in. The managers will change the way the team plays depending on how they like it, and certainly van Gaal has been imposing his brand of possession-based football. Fans and pundits will have their own problems with the system. Some will complain about the back-three, some will complain about the safety of the set-up, some will complain about his unwillingness to play players in the positions they are meant to play in. Unfortunately, I don’t think van Gaal is ever going to listen to these comments. He’s far too stubborn to listen to people, let alone people trying to tell him how to do his job. Ordinarily I’d agree with him; Moyes, after all, was such a weak manager because he was so completely out of his depth and ended up floundering in an attempt to pander to anyone and everyone. It was important for United to have a strong manager who could guide the club with a firm hand. But van Gaal has turned out to be the opposite end of the spectrum; someone so autocratic he might soon turn into a dictator if he hasn’t already. Everything must be done his way, no matter whether results are seen or not. “I’m Louis van Gaal,” he seems to say, puffing his chest out with four page documents in his hand. “And I’ll do it the way I want to do it, because it’ll work out. Suck on that, losers.”

What he fails to see is that having a philosophy, a mentality, doesn’t mean sticking to it no matter what. There are, for example, so many ways you can interpret ethics: deontology, utilitarianism, moral relativity. In the same way, philosophies can and will change depending on context. They’re meant to be flexible. If van Gaal’s philosophy isn’t working then obviously he has to change it. If his philosophy means that Wayne Rooney, one of the most famous strikers in the world, is playing defensive midfield, then obviously he has to change it. Being this stubborn does not help the club, does not help the team, does not help the results and the quest to get the title. Philosophy doesn’t mean that you get to play people out of position or ignore players because they “don’t fit” (hello, Ander Herrera). I don’t know whether van Gaal can’t see this or chooses to ignore it, but I for one am getting pretty frustrated at week after week of the painful, slow, difficult way that United plays. Ways they shouldn’t be playing, least of all against Burnley. Stubbornness is a wonderful characteristic to have, but it’s got to be accompanied by a shrewdness of knowing when to continue banging your head against the wall and when to find another way around the problem.

And where’s that other way? United’s philosophy. Steady streams of – not criticism, just disbelief – have been coming in from past United legends wondering why Manchester United has been reduced to static, unmoving football. Everyone’s crying out for a return to the football of fluidity, of speed, of risks. That’s what van Gaal seems to fear most, taking risks.  But United is all about that. In this climate, with the last two Champions’ League spots so closely contested, it might not make sense to take as much risk as Sir Alex Ferguson’s sides could afford to. And with the players that United has perhaps things have to be changed. But this is my entire point – that things can and should change depending on what is required of it, something that van Gaal seems loathe to do. And this is no excuse for the continued safe passes and cruelly stiff play that United fans have been forced to endure for a while now. The last game I remember enjoying was the 3-0 win over Liverpool; now every game is approached with a growing sense of dread that it will be yet another draw that we don’t deserve.

At the end of the day club philosophy will always be more important than managerial philosophy. Clubs have been there before managers and players and fans come to them, and clubs will be there after managers and players and fans have long gone. Managers must therefore learn how to adapt their own ideas into what the club already means and stands for. There’s a reason why Sir Matt and Sir Alex were so successful, even though Sir Alex was pretty much like van Gaal. Stubborn as anything, absolutely demanding, almost-dictatorial – but he knew when to adapt and when to change. If something wasn’t working he would try something else. I don’t see Sir Alex reverting to 3-5-2 when it’s been proven time and again that United have neither the players nor the capacity for it. Another reason Sir Alex was so successful is because his philosophy was pretty much United’s. Forcing something foreign (not meant literally, although it is true) on the players takes getting used to and takes tweaking, something van Gaal seems unwilling to do. I read an article today about how he’s ‘fearing the fans’ or something to that effect, but what I’m afraid of is that even with this he’s not going to change. The more people criticise him about the way he plays, the more he’ll stick to what he wants to do in an effort to prove the world wrong.

I’m not saying that philosophy is the be all and end all of football. Some people would argue that it’s completely irrelevant and what matters is the players’ performances, formations, hard and cold tactics. Fair enough, but what cannot be denied is that both United and van Gaal bring specific images and ways of doing things to mind, and the latter’s way is not working out. I’m not saying, either, that van Gaal should be sacked. For all our complaints we’re still somehow hanging onto third place and we’re doing a damned sight better than last year. Sacking van Gaal would only worsen the situation and emulate a certain London-blue club. No – I appreciate what van Gaal has done thus far with the club. My quibble now is that he must swallow his pride and understand that philosophy is not a monolithic bloc. It is something that can be changed and must be changed to improve. Football isn’t tabula rasa. It’s not a blank slate for van Gaal to come in, impose what he thinks, and believe that his way is the one way. It’s already a battlefield, with terrain to plan for, the enemy to overcome, context to take note of. If van Gaal can’t see that and adapt necessarily then I fear that United will become how they are currently playing – slow, static, and never moving forward.

We’ve got 352 problems

From the title you can probably guess what this is going to be about; a sort of venting of frustrations as I fail to understand why Louis van Gaal is so insistent on this mysterious thing he knows as ‘philosophy’.

This is not to say that I’ve lost faith in him, or that I don’t believe philosophy exists in football. Anyone who knows me will know that I put great store in the mentality and psychology of football, as opposed to pure, hard tactics (mainly because I haven’t wrapped my head around it yet). I do think that there has to be a basis upon which football is built, and that’s not tactics. If the players believe that they can win, and if they try their darnest to do so, they can. It’s as simple as that, and it’s something that Matt Busby and Alex Ferguson grasped. Busby never gave his team a formation to play with; it was always simply ‘go out there and win’. I remember Roy Keane recounting a similar episode with Sir Alex, where all he said was ‘lads, it’s Tottenham’, and let them off to do their thing. Without belief, without the players’ contributions and dedication, even the foremost tactician would not be able to get anything out of his team.

But, occasionally, this belief stems from the tactics that the manager plays, and what we’ve been seeing from van Gaal is mildly worrying. It’s very difficult to believe in a system that doesn’t give you very much to believe in. The first half of the QPR game yesterday was tired, unimaginative, sluggish. Players were sloppier than a primary school cafeteria. I think it was within the first minute that Mata, usually so composed on the ball, gave it away to someone who was thankfully unable to breach the Great Wall of de Gea. I can’t remember getting at all excited about any chance we had in the first half. I think there was one point when Rooney was clear, but instead of shooting (as I would imagine he’d used to have a go) he waited for someone else to pass it to. And I don’t understand this United side at all.

Manchester United has always been famous for its mental fortitude. I’m sorry that I must revert back to my beloved Class of ’92, but there were no greater practitioners of the art than Fergie’s fledglings themselves. In the ‘official’ story of the treble Ole Gunnar Solskjaer notes that no one ever believed they would lose. Everyone always believed that the treble was possible. Everyone believed that the 1-0, 90 minutes in, would be overturned. Gary Neville mentioned something smiliar. Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes understood the need to pick themselves up after defeats and just soldier on, giving their 110%. Sir Alex was a master of that; getting players to have that supreme level of confidence – not arrogant, just better. This United side, though, has looked mentally battered. I’m not blaming Louis van Gaal, because this is something that stems from the days of David Moyes. Once that veneer of invincibility shattered, Moyes was unable to keep it together. Ferguson had his low points as well – the barrenness of 2004-2006, bar the FA Cup – but he bounced back. Moyes was unable to do that. Whether it’s because of a lack of time or just lack of managerial ability I don’t know, but the fact remains that every defeat hits United hard. Every set-back, every goal scored against them, and they immediately looked deflated. They don’t bother trying to fight back. This is one problem that van Gaal’s philosophy urgently needs to solve, but so far it hasn’t been capable of that.

The second problem is the title of this piece: the 3-5-2 formation. Granted, it worked absolute wonders during pre-season, but it’s not at all working well now. United have only won 38% of the games in which they’ve played 3-5-2. They’ve won 86% of the 4-4-2 ones. The QPR-away game was absolutely painful to watch; the QPR-home game was one of the highlights of this season. Against almost the same side, they scraped to a narrow 2-1 with the 3-5-2 and a trouncing 4-0 with the 4-4-2 diamond. That home game was an absolute joy to watch. Free flowing, counter-attacking, real rough football. United football. Surely it’s no coincidence that United looked much better, started scoring goals, after van Gaal changed the formation yesterday.

I used to play this game with my friends called Dream League Soccer. I was playing one of them and realised that he’d put Ozil in centre forward; when I asked, he said it was because Ozil had pace. Perhaps this works in a game, where as long as you’re fast you can outrun the defenders and score. But not in real life. Di Maria is fast, but his pace doesn’t warrant his starting up front instead of Rooney, who is paid to be a striker. Pace doesn’t convert. If di Maria is in the FIFPRO team as a midfielder, then let him play in midfield. If you want pace to stretch the pitch, then bring on Wilson, which is exactly what gave us the second goal. Wayne Rooney is tireless in both attack and defence – one of the few, to be honest, who still espouses the 110% philosophy of the old United, no matter his well-documented attempts to be free of that – but that doesn’t make him a midfielder.

There’s technically nothing wrong with the 3-5-2 formation in and of itself. I’ve read some very good articles recently hailing its virtues and there are good things about it, like the way it stifles opponents and doesn’t let them get an edge in. It’s one of the most commonly used formations in Italy, I think. But the English Premier League is a league like no other and I think van Gaal still hasn’t gotten used to (or has refused to accept) this. United kept 63% possession in the first half against QPR, but created barely any chances. (One, I think? Which isn’t good enough.) To quote the man himself,

with the other system (3-5-2) we played against Tottenham, maybe you remember the first-half – we created six or seven chances more than today and we don’t score.

I think United simply doesn’t have the squad that matches what a 3-5-2 needs to be successful. We don’t have wing-backs, which are essential in a system like this. We have a conventional left-back and a winger. Shaw impresses with his runs upfield, but we’re always vulnerable to counter-attack, especially with a back-three this weak. Evans was unreliable yet again yesterday, nearly gifting a goal away. Supporters will quote the fact that United has let in only what, five goals less than Chelsea, who have one of the best defences. But that’s less of the system and more of the god that is David de Gea. The players aren’t suited for this system. Perhaps van Gaal’s strategy is to play it until they are, but why do that when there is the perfectly functional diamond that they are already familiar with? Where no one has to play a role that they aren’t meant to be playing?

It’s one thing to play 3-5-2 when it’s a game in which your best hope is closing down, parking the bus and just making sure that you’re so solid the opposing team can’t get through. But if you’re looking for goals – and in football, the goal is a goal – then 3-5-2 simply doesn’t offer that, especially with the side that United have now. van Gaal might think that 4 in midfield leaves the team weak, but I fail to see how that’s the case. On the contrary, it makes the team much better looking; more attacking; more likely to actually score. And with scoring comes confidence. You always feel better trying to break down the other side than putting up your defences and hope that you don’t get broken yourself. Perhaps the reason United have lost their edge is because they see the games they play as pointless. That they’re keeping possession but there’s no way through, so there’s no real reason to keep on going. And, at this point, I wouldn’t blame them. It’s difficult to be confident in something when you’re repeatedly frustrated, even more difficult to build confidence when it doesn’t yet exist.

A Bayern fan pointed out that van Gaal played Schweinsteiger in midfield, a move everyone thought was stupid, and look how that turned out. Certainly the stubborn insistence on 3-5-2 is something most people think stupid, but as for coming good, I’m not so sure whether that will work, considering the players we have, and considering the drawbacks of this system. To quote Scholes’s column on this subject:

My issue with it has always been that it gives a team the security of having possession without offering them the opportunities from which they might score the goals that win the game.

Playing another formation won’t solve the confidence issue, which I think is the most important problem right now, but it could certainly help by digging us out more victories. I don’t distrust Louis van Gaal. I think that he’s an excellent manager, and that we should have faith in what he does. And I know that he and Sir Alex are more alike than it would seem at first glance; both are extremely stubborn and like to stick to what they know, so I won’t expect the system to change anytime soon. The difference is that Sir Alex arrived in the position of being able to enforce his philosophy over the club. Louis van Gaal arrives at a club already rich in tradition. It might help if he was able to swallow his pride, even if just for a little while, and find out what United’s way of doing things has to offer him.